A Defense of Kwame Gyekye’s Moderate Communitarianism

IF 0.5 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Philosophical Papers Pub Date : 2020-01-02 DOI:10.1080/05568641.2019.1684840
K. Kalumba
{"title":"A Defense of Kwame Gyekye’s Moderate Communitarianism","authors":"K. Kalumba","doi":"10.1080/05568641.2019.1684840","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract An avowed communitarian, Gyekye follows the lead of such African communitarians as Menkiti who believe that the community is ontologically prior to the individual. However, unlike Menkiti and other typical communitarians whom he describes as extreme communitarians, Gyekye rejects the moral subordination of the individual to the community. Describing his position as moderate communitarianism, Gyekye insists on ascribing to the individual and the community ‘the status of an equal moral standing’. I defend Gyekye’s moderate communitarianism against four of its leading contemporary African critiques: Matolino, Famakinwa, Metz, and Oyowe. I argue that the four critiques fail to dislodge it. In addition, I suggest two amendments to the theory which are intended to further entrench it and to increase its competitiveness against other contemporary African political theories with a sub-Saharan pedigree. As a first amendment, I suggest supplementing it with a theory of justice that is well-equipped with guidelines on how to handle clashes among Gyekye’s basic values. As a second amendment, I propose that Gyekye abandon his current stance of ontologically subordinating the individual to the community in favor of according both equal ontological standing.","PeriodicalId":46780,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical Papers","volume":"49 1","pages":"137 - 158"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/05568641.2019.1684840","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophical Papers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/05568641.2019.1684840","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Abstract An avowed communitarian, Gyekye follows the lead of such African communitarians as Menkiti who believe that the community is ontologically prior to the individual. However, unlike Menkiti and other typical communitarians whom he describes as extreme communitarians, Gyekye rejects the moral subordination of the individual to the community. Describing his position as moderate communitarianism, Gyekye insists on ascribing to the individual and the community ‘the status of an equal moral standing’. I defend Gyekye’s moderate communitarianism against four of its leading contemporary African critiques: Matolino, Famakinwa, Metz, and Oyowe. I argue that the four critiques fail to dislodge it. In addition, I suggest two amendments to the theory which are intended to further entrench it and to increase its competitiveness against other contemporary African political theories with a sub-Saharan pedigree. As a first amendment, I suggest supplementing it with a theory of justice that is well-equipped with guidelines on how to handle clashes among Gyekye’s basic values. As a second amendment, I propose that Gyekye abandon his current stance of ontologically subordinating the individual to the community in favor of according both equal ontological standing.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
夸梅·格耶的温和社群主义辩护
作为一名公开的社群主义者,Gyekye追随Menkiti等非洲社群主义者的领导,后者认为社群在本体论上先于个人。然而,与门基蒂和其他被他描述为极端社群主义者的典型社群主义者不同,Gyekye反对个人从属于社群的道德从属。Gyekye将自己的立场描述为温和的社群主义,他坚持认为个人和社群具有“平等的道德地位”。我为Gyekye的温和社群主义辩护,反对当代非洲四大主要批评者:Matolino、Famakinwa、Metz和Oyowe。我认为,这四种批评都未能推翻它。此外,我建议对这一理论进行两项修正,目的是进一步巩固这一理论,并提高其与具有撒哈拉以南血统的其他当代非洲政治理论相比的竞争力。作为第一项修正案,我建议用一种正义理论来补充它,这种正义理论配备了关于如何处理吉尔吉斯斯坦基本价值观之间冲突的指导方针。作为第二项修正,我建议Gyekye放弃他目前的立场,即在本体论上将个人从属于社会,而支持双方平等的本体论立场。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Philosophical Papers
Philosophical Papers PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Philosophical Papers is an international, generalist journal of philosophy edited in South Africa Original Articles: Articles appearing in regular issues are original, high-quality, and stand-alone, and are written for the general professional philosopher. Submissions are welcome in any area of philosophy and undergo a process of peer review based on initial editor screening and refereeing by (usually) two referees. Special Issues: Topic-based special issues are comprised of both invited and submitted papers selected by guest editors. Recent special issues have included ''Philosophy''s Therapeutic Potential'' (2014, editor Dylan Futter); ''Aging and the Elderly'' (2012, editors Tom Martin and Samantha Vice); ''The Problem of the Criterion'' (2011, editor Mark Nelson); ''Retributive Emotions'' (2010, editor Lucy Allais); ‘Rape and its Meaning/s’ (2009, editor Louise du Toit). Calls for papers for upcoming special issues can be found here. Ideas for future special issues are welcome.
期刊最新文献
Decolonising Philosophy Hostile Scaffolding Development and Modernity in Africa: An Intercultural Philosophical Perspective Hobbes On Scientific Happiness How Manipulation Arguments Mischaracterize Determinism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1